A lot of these changes make sense (although some of them are a bit too TIMTOWTDI for my taste) - but perhaps LuaJIT 3 would benefit from a change of name as well? Certainly with all these changes, it would be more like a separate language than merely a JIT-compiled version of Lua.

https://www.lua.org/versions.html#5.3

https://www.lua.org/manual/5.3/manual.html#3.4.2

Looks like LuaJIT is catching up, but calling these "syntax extensions" is confusing. Is the intent to hold LuaJIT fixed against some earlier Lua version (I guess 5.1) and adopt newer syntax piecemeal?

I welcome the compound assignment operators. Playdate's version of Lua also has that extension.

Why though? What does changing `and` to `&&` actually achieve? Were people confused?

Changing the syntax seems very surface level. It's not actually fixing any problems, just making Lua no longer look like Lua. It's not going to help anyone write/learn Lua. It will make everything more complicated as there are now two ways to do everything.

This feels like adding braces to Python because you don't like indenting your code.

My ultimate goal was to support LuaJIT in Rust as well but this does not make it easier.

Some of these really look like QoL improvements. I'm not convinced ternary statements are an ergonomic improvement in particular. The examples given don't make a compelling case, 'visually tidy' is not the same as readable.

So shouldn't it have a new name?

I'm proud of it and thankfull to the Lua/Luajit projects.

Personally im a fan of introducing ternaranary operator in lua. Everyone uses `x and y or z` as a ternanary which i find way more confusing than ?:

I am asking because i want to implement plugins in my media server, however i want to guard them in vm's i can control.

In effort to not pollute the github issue, and hopes that the authors read this thread, I will put some of my thoughts here. There are 3 main strengths of Lua: Embeddable, Fast, and Small(easy to learn). I worry some of these changes divert from the last, expanding the language into a more complicated language.

Here is a list of things already implemented in PUC Lua so can be considered safe to add:

  ● ~ a     Bitwise negate
  ● a & b   Bitwise and
  ● a | b   Bitwise or
  ● a ~ b   Bitwise Xor
  ● a << b  Left-shift
  ● a >> b  Logical right-shift
  ● a // b  Floor divide
  ● break   Break statement

  ● Const keyword: changing const from `local a <const> = 42` to `const a = 42` is far better syntax. The bracketed syntax was never a good idea.
  ● nil-Coalescing and safe navigation are great additions as they are basically macros at the parsing stage.
  ● Compound assignment is also basically a macro at the parsing stage as well. Lua should already have this honestly.
  ● Ternary Operator: I *like* it and it will help the stumbling block of the `a and b or c` common pattern already in use. Though I think (like others have stated) the If/then/else syntax would be more inline with the language, similar to ruby and would enable far more emergent behaviour. However it does establish a new pattern that the last value in a block is a return value similar to ruby so I am conflicted about that.
  ● `continue` it is nicer than a goto and is helpful.
  ● String interpolation: I honestly don't love lua's concat operator `..` so honestly string interpolation would be a nice to have and a feature of many modern languages. However I do worry about it's effect on parsing performance, and complexity of the language.
  ● Underscores in numbers: *shrug*

  ● The `and` `&&` and `or` `||`. This just goes in the wrong direction for lua. It is often confusing in ruby (especially because of precedence issues) but also lua is a wordy language. It has `do` `end` blocks instead of brackets. It adds ambiguity for no reason.
  ● Short form function syntax. Lua does not need this and I am not sure anyone asked for this. Why `a = |x| do ... end` is more helpful than just `a = function(x) ... end` is unclear and would love to hear more about why this is being considered.
  ● Named varargs: It may be nice, but there is no real reason to add this. If you wanted a name for your varargs you could do `local name = ...` or just use the `args` variable already available in every function.
  ● Switch/Match/Select Statements: An optimized if/else block works just as well and another expansion of a small language.

local gauge = count + (direction == "up" ? 10 : -10)

I imagine these changes make the original Lua adepts think their training wheels have come off. The language now looks like any other. That's a good thing to me, and it will help with the adoption of the JIT, but the whole language could have been syntax modernized as a result. But.. when the work is done someone else can fork it into something independent from its Lua roots.

From that perspective the conditional operator seems defensible, where it would be feature creep otherwise, as it is generally unloved elsewhere.

Also, I love this kind of pragmatism:

> Exponentiation assignment a ^= b has been deliberately omitted to avoid a predictable pitfall: this is how xor assignment is written in most other computer languages. Also, a syntax for exponentiation assignment is rarely asked for.

A ‘defer’ for closing files or deleting temp files at the end of a script will make life more enjoyable.

Likewise, going from `and` and `or` to `&&` and `||` would be a dispiriting regression. This is something that Zig got right.

1) Ease of learning, ideally minimal deviant behaviour (eg i consider lua tables to be a new concept in itself)

2) Reasonably fast. Not as much as lua jit but even half would be good enough

3) Mature

4) Has Rust bindings

That's just one example of so many more. I get that lua occupies a useful niche with its focus on embedded systems, but lua is not really a well-designed language in general. JavaScript has a similar problem.